Ready or not? Results of an orientation week survey of education students
Dr Glenice Watson, Dr Greer Johnson & Dr Stephen Billett
Faculty of Education
Griffith University
ABSTRACT
Readiness to attend university is an increasing concern for university stakeholders interested in student retention, achievement and satisfaction. This paper outlines and discusses the results of a broad-band survey administered to five cohorts within the Education Faculty at one Australian university so as to gain a snapshot of the readiness (or not) factor of its first year population. The initial findings demonstrate that just prior to beginning their respective programs of study most of the cohorts displayed elevated levels of enthusiasm that are not matched by levels of preparedness and knowledge about "doing" university. However, a key finding in line with previous studies of first year students, is that significant differences in individual histories and levels of engagement with university life are discernible from one program cohort to another.
Introduction
Student retention in higher education is of concern in universities world-wide (see for example Yorke, 1998a, on UK retention; Moortgat, 1996, on five European countries; and McInnis & James, 1995, and McInnis, James & Hartley, 2000, on Australian retention). This has been so for a considerable period of time (see for example Johnson, 1996, for numerous references dating back to the 1950s, and Tinto, 1975). The concern is partially located in costs to the public purse (Yorke, 1998b), recent changes to funding policies that penalise universities for student attrition, and also out of concern for the students themselves (Pitkethly & Prosser (2001, p.185). While the concern regarding retention is universal, the factors impacting on retention are far less so. McInnis and James (1995) note that variations between universities are ‘sizeable’ (p.17) and furthermore that there were ‘substantial variations’ to be found between courses (p.23). Johnson (1996) reports on the faculty differences in university attrition. Pitkethly and Prosser (2001, p.86) advise that: “because of the inherent differences between university campuses, each university must understand the needs and experiences of its own students”. This intention to understand our own students underwrote the research reported below. Specifically, this paper outlines and discusses the results of a broad-band survey used by an Education faculty within one Australian university to gain a broad picture of the readiness (or not) factor of its first year population.
Readiness to attend university is identified as a factor in student retention, achievement and satisfaction (Peel, 1999; Tinto, 1987). Tinto (1987, p.139) includes within his six principles that support student success and retention in their first year at university: “students enter with, or have the opportunity to acquire, the skills needed for academic success”. In Peel’s (1999, p.11) ‘basic set of expectations’ for universities attempting to address issues of first year transition, he includes “strategies for identifying and predicting the problems of new students” and “routine collection, analysis and dissemination of data concerning the experience of new students”.
The research reported in this paper is part of a wider interventionist research project that has as its goal the identification and development of strategic responses that improve student retention, achievement and satisfaction within specific programs of the Faculty of Education at Griffith University. The research has been funded under a university-sponsored Strategic Improvement Grant on the premise that retention rates can always be improved. The overall focus of the grant’s activities is upon students who are at risk of leaving their program and/or subject due to unsatisfactory performance, particularly in their first year of study. The cohorts of students selected to participate in the project were considered to be representative of the range of Faculty of Education undergraduate programs and campuses. The programs selected were Bachelor of Education (Primary), Bachelor of Education (Secondary) and Bachelor of Adult and Vocational Education (BAVE). The Bachelor of Education (Primary) is conducted on three campuses of the university and these programs have been treated separately.
In McInnis and James’s (1995) extensive study of the first year on campus of Australian students, they conducted case studies of seven universities that were considered as ‘representative of the system as a whole’. To preserve the anonymity of these universities they use institutional types as identifiers (p.11). Griffith University, most closely aligns with their ‘suburban university’ institutional type. The characteristics of this type include a well-formed profile; a main campus outer metropolitan site; and (following mergers) also smaller campuses; mid-size with a wide range of courses.
In overview, the current investigation aims to identify the factors that shape student satisfaction, achievement and retention under the broad classifications of (i) Individual Histories; (ii) Engagement; and (iii) Institutional Affordances. These classifications were synthesised from a review of literature. Individual Histories refers to factors associated with students’ familiarity with higher education studies, their readiness for academic study, and the relatedness of the program to individuals’ interests. Factors associated with Engagement include the degree of support that students might find in their ‘home life’ outside the University, and extends to distractions that students may face. Institutional Affordances comprise factors associated with the students’ experiences within the University.
It is anticipated that, collectively, these factors will illuminate bases that determine if and how well the students are able to participate in Faculty activities, enhance their satisfaction with the teaching and learning process, and also reduce the prospect of unnecessary or undesired non-completions. The findings of this program of inquiry are intended to inform the development and implementation of strategies for achieving improved achievement, satisfaction and retention.
Method
In overview, the procedures adopted for the investigation comprise four interrelated phases of data gathering and analysis. The first is a review of literature of issues associated with student achievement, satisfaction and retention. The second phase comprises access to supplementary data comprising existing records of student cohorts. The third phase of data comprises that provided by current students through surveys (reported below), interviews and focus groups. These procedures are used to provide different sets and forms of data about student histories and factors shaping engagement, and to identify institutional affordances. The fourth phase comprises a period of data analysis and reporting, including the identification of strategic approaches and strategies to enhance student satisfaction, achievement and completion.
This paper reports solely on aspects of the data obtained through an initial survey that was administered to students during Orientation Week. This survey focussed on the first two of the identified factors, namely Individual Histories and Engagement. The survey was voluntary and anonymous and was administered to cohorts of students who were informed about its purpose. The survey was constructed around three lines of inquiry. The first was general demographic information that required yes/no or specific numbers (for example hours in paid work) as responses. The second was a series of statements exploring attitude that required responses within a range from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. The final section comprised open-ended questions that required written responses.
Description of students
The respondents to the survey were involved in four programs across three campuses of the university. In the analysis that follows, programs and campuses have been handled separately so that 5 programs are identified. In total, 642 students responded to the survey (BEd(Prim)MG 118, BEd(Prim)LG 116, BEd(Prim)GC 84, BEd(Sec) 170, BAVE 44).
The gender and age distribution of the respondents is shown in Table 1. Consistent with gender distributions in undergraduate education programs (81.2 % in McInnis and James 1995, p.24) females comprised 79.6 percent of the overall population. However, there are marked differences in this composition between programs, with the BEd(Prim) LG having the highest female population at 88.5 percent and the BAVE the lowest with 40.5 percent. The strong female distribution in the three BEd(Prim) programs would suggest or predict a positive impact on retention if, as McInnis and James (1995, p. xi) note, “females tended to have stronger academic orientation and application towards their studies, a stronger sense of purpose, and were more likely to be satisfied with their courses”.
%
Female
/%
Male
/ % Age17-19yrs / % Age
30+ yrs
BEd(Prim) – Mt Gravatt / 84.9 / 15.1 / 47.8 / 20.1
BEd(Prim) – Logan / 88.5 / 11.5 / 48.3 / 30.2
BEd(Prim) – Gold Coast / 79.3 / 20.7 / 39.3 / 25.0
BEd(Sec) / 73.4 / 26.6 / 61.1 / 9.6
BAVE / 40.5 / 59.5 / 0 / 88.4
Total / 79.6 / 20.4 / 47.9 / 24.6
Table 1:Gender & age differences between programs (%)
In the sample overall, 47.9 percent of respondents would be considered as ‘school leavers’ (17-19 year olds). This contrasts with McInnis and James’ (1995) figures that show 70.9 percent of all first year students (p.16), 74.2 percent of students at ‘suburban university’ (p. 17), and 73.6 percent of ‘education’ students (p.24) in this age group. Again there is considerable difference between programs, with the highest percent (61.1 percent) of school leavers being in the BEd(Sec) program. Overall 24.6 percent of respondents could be considered ‘mature age’ (30-59 year olds). This is markedly different from McInnis and James’s figure of 7.2 percent for mature first year students in general and 6.4 percent of ‘suburban university’. The highest percent (88.4 percent) of mature students are in the BAVE program and the lowest (9.6 percent) are in the BEd(Sec). As another predictor, the relative maturity of the cohort under study should have a positive influence on retention, as “mature-age students generally reported more positive attitudes and experiences than school-leavers” and school leavers were “a particularly problematic group … they were relatively less certain of their roles than older students, less diligent in their study habits, and less academically oriented” (McInnis & James, 1995, p.xi).
Students were asked if they identified themselves as an Aboriginal person, a Torres Strait Islander person, a person from a Non English Speaking Background, a person with physical impairment, or a person with learning impairment. Only very low percentages of students identified as any of these groups. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons (2.8%) were predominantly in the BEd(Prim)MtG, and BEd(Sec) programs. Only 4.2 percent identified themselves as NESB. This is in contrast to McInnis and James’ ‘suburban university’ type showing 24.2 percent as ‘LOTE spoken in home’ and 14.0 percent as ‘born overseas’. These authors note that the ‘suburban university’ institutional type has the lowest percent of ‘born overseas’ first year students and that “education courses were considerably less diverse in their place of birth than other student groups” (pp. 24-25).
In summary, the respondents to the survey were similar in gender composition to McInnis and James’ education respondents, but were considerably more mature and less diverse than their respondents in both ‘education’ field of study and ‘suburban university’ institutional type.
Individual Histories
‘Individual Histories’ is one of the factors chosen in this study for identifying and analysing student retention, satisfaction and achievement. As noted above, ‘Individual Histories’ refers to factors associated with students’ familiarity with higher education studies and culture, their preparedness for academic study, and the relatedness of the course to the individuals’ interests and capabilities.
Familiarity
From a "common-sense" perspective, students who have members of their immediate family who are attending, or have attended, university could be expected to have a better understanding of university culture than those who do not. Overall 55.3 percent of respondents had immediate family members who are/were university attendees and there is remarkable program consistency in this figure. While this seems to leave a very high percentage of students who could be expected to have little understanding of university culture, this does not necessarily indicate a negative impact on retention, as McInnis and James (1995) note that: “Students from homes where neither parent had been to university showed a stronger sense of purpose and application” (p. xi). These authors also comment that: “Teaching is still a career for upward social mobility” and that “fewer Education students (23 percent compared with 31 percent in all fields of study) had fathers who had completed university degrees” (p. 25).
Familiarity can also be gauged from statements in the survey’s attitude section concerning how the respondents had found out about the program of study, their attendance at Open Days and Information Sessions and their understanding of study at university (Figure 1). Only 16.1 percent of all respondents indicated that they ‘strongly agree’ with the statement about having found out a lot about the program of study, with the BEd(Sec) respondents showing the least agreement with this statement. Across programs, 37.3 percent of respondents indicated strong agreement with having been to an Open Day or Information session, with the BEd(Sec) students again showing least agreement. To the statement about understanding what it is like to study at university only 18.1 percent indicated ‘strongly agree’. Contrarily to their responses to the other two statements BEd(Sec) students indicated a stronger agreement (19.5%) with this statement than did all but BED(Prim)MtG (19.8%).
Figure 1:Familiarity with study in higher education (% strongly agree)
Preparedness
Preparedness of students to undertake their university studies could be indicated by their attitudes about coming to university; their knowledge of how to undertake certain university tasks such as accessing library or computer resources; their ability to work independently and interdependently; and their attitude and knowledge about doing the work and achieving the grades they desire. Table 2 shows the percent of respondents who indicated ‘strong agreement’ with the statements about preparedness. This table is sorted in order of overall strength of responses to the statements. If these responses are sorted by program some differences emerge. For example the strongest response in the BEd(Prim)GC program was to the statement Aiming to achieve very high grades while for all other programs it was Excited about coming to Uni. The weakest response in the BAVE program was to the statement Understand how to achieve successful study while for all other programs it was Know how to access Uni library material. The BAVE respondents showed stronger agreement to the ‘know how’ statements of accessing Uni computer based resources and library materials than did respondents from other programs.
Total% / Prim MG / Prim LG / Prim GC / Sec / BAVE
Excited about coming to Uni / 48.4 / 49.5 / 58.3 / 56.0 / 40.6 / 40.9
Aiming to achieve very high grades / 46.6 / 48.4 / 53.0 / 59.0 / 38.7 / 18.2
Looking forward to starting studies / 44.1 / 45.2 / 54.8 / 50.0 / 38.2 / 25.0
Work well with other people / 37.8 / 42.6 / 37.4 / 42.9 / 32.9 / 27.3
Work well independently / 36.7 / 39.4 / 42.6 / 46.4 / 32.9 / 18.2
Confident that I can do the work / 30.7 / 31.4 / 35.7 / 34.5 / 28.4 / 7.0
Know how to access computer resources / 19.0 / 17.1 / 23.7 / 20.7 / 17.1 / 25.0
Understand how to achieve successful study outcomes / 18.1 / 20.2 / 19.1 / 26.2 / 17.1 / 4.5
Know how to access Uni library material / 10.3 / 10.8 / 6.3 / 14.6 / 8.9 / 18.6
Table 2: Preparedness statements by program (% Strongly agree)
Overall, the respondents expressed strong levels (agreement 40+ percent) of preparedness in terms of intentions and attitudes to coming to university; medium levels (agreement 30-39 percent) of preparedness in terms of confidence regarding doing the work either independently or interdependently; and low levels (agreement less than 20 percent) of preparedness in terms of ‘know how’ and understanding how to achieve successful outcomes.
Relatedness
Relatedness of program of study to individuals’ interest is indicated by whether or not the students were undertaking a program that was their first choice, how well their study program related to their long term goal, and their understanding of the profession the program prepared them for.
Overall 77.1 percent of respondents were studying a program that was their first choice. This is markedly higher than the overall figure of 67 percent reported by McInnis and James (1995) and particularly so when compared with the 58 percent in the equivalent institution type of ‘suburban university’ (p.22). Students in the BAVE are most likely to be undertaking a program of their first preference (90.0 percent). Within the BEd(Prim) programs, students at the Gold Coast campus were most likely (79.8 percent) and at Logan least likely (73.0 percent) to be undertaking their first preference program.
Similarly it has been identified that students are more likely to complete a program if they have a clear goal commensurate with the program aims (Tinto, 1987), in this case teaching or training. Very high percentages of students in all programs (96.2) have a long-term aim of teaching or training. There is far less difference between programs for this indicator, with the lowest percent being the BEd(Prim)Lg program (93.9).
Students who have/had members of their immediate family who are, or have been, teachers could be expected to have a better understanding of the profession than those who do not. Perhaps surprisingly, 73.7 percent of respondents had no member of their immediate family who are or had been teachers. Students in the BEd(Prim)MtG program are most likely (31.4%) to have/had teachers in their immediate family.
Attitudes and understandings about teaching as a profession can also be gauged from responses to survey statements concerning what it means to be a teacher; their personality suitability to teaching; and their enthusiasm for becoming a teacher (Figure 2). Overall, 31.6 percent, 48.7 percent and 56.0 percent respectively of respondents indicated strong agreement with these statements. Again there are interesting program differences in this data. The respondents least enthusiastic about becoming teachers/trainers were BAVE, and BEd(Sec) respondents expressed weaker agreement to both statements concerning understanding of what it meant to be a teacher and that their personality suited them to becoming a teacher.